Skip to main content
Glama

SUNAGO Matrix

by com.sunago-matrix

Get deals

crm_get_deals
Read-onlyIdempotent

List CRM deals (RLS-scoped). DEFAULTS TO OPEN DEALS ONLY - statuses the workspace has not marked as terminal, so Won and Lost are excluded. Say so when you answer ("you have 12 open deals"), and read meta.scope_note for how many closed ones were left out. Pass scope: archived for deals that are won or lost, or all for anything measured over a period - revenue history, deals closed in the last x months, win rates. Max limit 200 - the response always carries pagination.total plus has_more/next_cursor. NEVER sum deal values from a single page while has_more is true; use the reports_get 'deal_pipeline' report for pipeline totals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax 200.
scopeNoactive (default) covers only what is still live. Use archived for finished or lost records, or all when the question spans both - historical revenue, deals closed over a period, anything measured across time. Always tell the user which set your answer covers.active
cursorNoOpaque cursor from a previous response's pagination.next_cursor. Preferred over offset: keyset paging never skips or duplicates rows.
offsetNoRow offset for offset-based paging. Ignored when cursor is supplied.
statusNoExact status name. Overrides scope, since naming a status already says which set you mean.
owner_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNo
dealsYes
warningNoPresent only when the page is truncated.
paginationYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses important runtime behavior: default open-only filtering, terminal-status exclusion, pagination details, meta.scope_note, and the 200-item limit. It also warns against summing values across pages, which is critical behavioral context not available from annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence carries operational value: scope defaults, user-communication requirements, pagination handling, and the explicit warning against partial-sum calculations. It is front-loaded with the most important behavioral fact and avoids filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity—scopes, pagination, row limits, and interaction with reports_get—the description is complete. The output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary, and the description covers all key invocation concerns including how to communicate results to the user.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is high at 83%, but the tool description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the default scope set, the distinction between archived/all for time-spanning queries, cursor-versus-offset behavior, and pagination constraints. The only minor gap is owner_id, which has no schema description and no description-level guidance, but the rest is thoroughly covered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List CRM deals') and immediately clarifies the RLS scoping and default open-only behavior, which precisely defines what the tool does. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling get tools by explaining scope semantics and pointing to reports_get for pipeline totals.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use different scope values ('archived for deals that are won or lost, or all for anything measured over a period') and gives a direct alternative ('use the reports_get deal_pipeline report for pipeline totals'). It also instructs the agent to disclose scope and read meta.scope_note, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SUNAGO Matrix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.

Naming Consistency4/5

The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.

Tool Count1/5

With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.

Resources